In a catastrophic scene which signalled the collapse of the Egyptian State and the absence of the rule of law, a ‘happy ending’ was on Thursday 16 February worked for the sectarian crisis
In a catastrophic scene which signalled the collapse of the Egyptian State and the absence of the rule of law, a ‘happy ending’ was on Thursday 16 February worked for the sectarian crisis which had erupted on 27 January in the village of Sharbat in al-Nahda, Amriya, south of Alexandria. The Egyptian media enthusiastically hailed the success of the parliamentary fact finding commission in putting out the ‘sectarian’ fire. I wish to draw my readers’ attention that it has become a tradition with Egyptian officials and media to term as “sectarian” every attack in which the offender is Muslim and the victim is Copt, thereby making it sound as though both parties are equally to blame. The Amriya crisis was resolved when Sheikh Sherif al-Hawari, head of the Amriya Salafi Daawa (literally, Bidding), pledged to allow the return of the Coptic families that had been banished from the village by a urfi (informal) council formed of Muslim village elders, Salafi sheikhs, and local politicians and security officials.
The media almost ululated with joy, and the parliamentary fact finding commission was intoxicated with pride on account of its success in the Sharbat case. There was the Salafi Sheikh Hawari condescending to accept the return of the Coptic families who had been forcefully evicted from the village for no fault other than being Christian, the same religion as the man who was accused of having an illicit affair with a Muslim woman. It had been deemed necessary by the Salafis to penalise all the Christians in the village; it mattered not that there was no relation whatsoever between any of them and the young man alleged to have misbehaved. It must be noted that even had there existed such a relation, it would have been no justification for penalising innocent persons. But what happened is that the common religion they all shared made them legitimate targets for collective punishment, and made their lives, security, and property valid goals for intimidation, terrorism, looting, burning, and seizure.
Let no-one ask me about the rule of law, the role of the authorities in bringing about justice and in protecting peaceful law-abiding Egyptian civilians from intimidation and assault. It is obvious the authorities have lost their way: it is not as though they were, for any reason, absent from the scene of the events; they were present, contributing to and actively endorsing the farce which took place in the urfi council and which ended with the collective punishment of the Copts. This council usurped the supremacy of the law, appointed itself opponent and arbitrator, and issued a ruling to forcefully evict the Coptic families from the village and auction off their property.
Most unfortunately, this ugly scenario is not new to the Egyptian scene; it is just that Egyptians, and Copts in specific, thought that the 25 January Revolution would put an end to all pre-revolution political and security corruption. Those urfi councils and ‘conciliation sessions’, which were organised and sponsored then by the local and security authorities, used to place on equal footing the Coptic victim and the Muslim assailant. The victim was forced to accept a ‘conciliation’ that would involve giving up all legal rights, and the offender was guaranteed to escape unscathed. These councils, the epitome of tyranny and indignity, have never been blotted out of Coptic collective memory. But Copts never imagined the practice would go on full-force after the Revolution, with a slight change in roles: those organising and presiding over them are now Salafi sheikhs, and those blessing and sponsoring them are the political and security authorities.
Now may everyone rejoice! The epic of the village of Sharbat has come to a close. A Salafi amnesty has been issued, and the Coptic families may now go back to their homes. The terror these families were subjected to is of no moment. They were surrounded, while in the supposed safety of their homes, by a raging mob that broke into their shops—which lay on the ground floor of their big house—looted all their goods and torched the building. They had to flee for their lives, with their wives and children, up the roof; then cross over to the nearest roof, then to the next, to get away from the fires. All this while the mob raged outside demanding the Coptic women and threatening rape. One has to thank the Lord that houses are built close to one another in our villages, otherwise these Copts would never have been saved; and also for the kind Muslims who helped them escape and took them into their homes. Yet a Salafi amnesty has now been issued; let bygones be bygones; and the offenders may go in peace. The rule of law and the dignity of the State may go to the wind.
Human rights organisations alone, through their full knowledge of the facts, expressed their strongest rejection of the decline of the role of the State and the lack of the rule of law in managing the crisis. These organisations protested against the State and security authorities abandoning their responsibilities by taking active part in the urfi council and blessing the ruling which tyrannised innocent individuals and imposed illegal, informal, one-sided judgements. The human rights organisations insisted that a fair investigation should be conducted and the culprits caught and brought to justice, be they mobsters, criminals, or political or security officials.
As for the Copts, it’s anyone’s guess how safe they feel in their own homeland and how terrified they can be of the unknown which lies in wait, ready to pounce without their committing any fault. Their very existence and security are under threat, a blatant challenge for the authorities which claim to represent the State.
WATANI International
26 February 2012